Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were initially taken on Nominal Muster Rolls (hereinafter 'NMR') in month of October, 2019 to work in a wine shop at Nidamarru village and Mandal, West Gdoavari District, which is under the control of the second respondent/Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Limited. Thereafter, they were directed to work as salesman on regular basis, but not issued any appointment orders, as their selection is not done through notification.

It is further contended that, purchase of liquor on behalf of Konakala Venkateswara Rao (A-1) by these petitioners and selling the same to the said Konakala Venkateswara Rao is a serious offence and it amounts to violation of duty of these petitioners. it is further contended that, when these petitioners were remanded to judicial custody, that itself is sufficient to remove these petitioners from the services of Nominal Muster Rolls who are engaged in the sale of liquor in the wine shop of the second respondent and finally sought to dismiss the writ petition.

Whereas, Sri M. Jaya Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the petitioners have no right to claim reinstatement, as the second respondent paying daily wage to the members of Nominal Muster Rolls and no notice is required to be issued to these petitioners either as NMRs or as salesman. Apart from that, no material is produced to establish that the services of the petitioners were converted from the services of Nominal Muster Rolls to salesman. In the absence of any material, learned counsel would contend that, it is difficult to hold that these petitioners are salesman engaged by the second respondent for sale of liquor and consequently the petitioners are not entitled to claim writ of mandamus, as they have no existing legal right and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

MSM,J A bare look at the allegations made in Paragraph No.3 of the writ affidavit, the petitioners were engaged as members in Nominal Muster Rolls for a period of three months. Thereafter, they were directed work as salesman on regular basis, without any appointment order. Similarly, the second respondent also admitted in the counter affidavit that these petitioners were engaged as members of Nominal Muster Rolls, while denying their conversion into salesman. Therefore, engaging the services of these petitioners as NMRs is an undisputed fact, but their conversion into salesman is a disputed question of fact.